W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Domain of :key

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 22:06:13 +0200
Cc: public-webid@w3.org
Message-Id: <9BC6DDFB-B6FF-4C9D-B0ED-87D394EE08DC@bblfish.net>
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>

On 1 Apr 2013, at 21:45, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:

> On 4/1/13 3:15 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> We can add new relations. Just let us know what you want. I am not sure why you want to merge two relations. You have not explained this yet, nor have you given a full use case.
>> 
>> As far as X509 goes if you look at it it is relating a DN and its subject alternative names to a public key.
>> If you think of that semantically that can be modelled as
>> 
>> <> a X509Cert;
>>    foaf:primaryTopic<ldap://DN=....>  ;
>>  <ldap://DN=....>  owl:sameAs<https://my.domain.example/joe#me>;
>>     cert:key [ a cert:RSAPublicKey;
>>                cert:modulus "...";
>>                cert:exponent "..." ] .
> 
> Why not:
> 
> <#dnReferentID>
> <#hasKey> <#PublicKey> .
> <#sanReferentID>
> <#hasKey> <#PublicKey> .
> 
> <#hasKey>
> a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, owl:ObjectProperty .

If  <#hasKey> owl:sameAs cert:key, then what you wrote is equivalent
to what I wrote above.

Indeed the owl:InverseFunctionalProperty is essential, and it would not be true for a 
cert:signedWith relation that we should probably coin. Because hopefully you can sign
more than one document with a key! The same would be true with a cert:encryptedWith relation,
as one would like to encrypt any number of documents with the same key.

Both something along the lines of a cert:signedWith and a cert:encryptedWith relatinon would
be very useful to have in the cert ontology. But they are clearly not going to be equivalent
to the cert:key relation ( or your <#hasKey> ).

> 
> What's critical to WebID is the InverseFunctionalProperty relation semantics which help appreciate the optimal domain for <#hasKey> .

yes. Agree. 

> 
> Conclusion: we need to cater for the fact that public keys can (and will) be associated with all sorts of things (owl:Thing entity types) for a plethora of reasons. Thus, it's best veer away from generic terms (and resulting intuitions) when the usage purpose is very specific.

yes. I am in favor of adding relations such as signedWith or encryptedWith to the ontology.

Henry

> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/



Received on Monday, 1 April 2013 20:06:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:43 UTC